Just please please don't let them “hollywoodize” it. By that, good examples, Transformers 1 & 2 (I don't care what you guys say, I hated those movies. Especially after growing up on the TV show), GI Joe (Again, WTF is up with Cobra Commander?! C'mon!) or even Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull (after all these holy artifacts, he comes across aliens?!). Really, about the only way I can see them doing the third movie is its like Dan envisioned is the 4 guys are CEO/executives in a GB franchise or its done EGB “Back in the Saddle” style. Not exactly the same as Egon living alone in the firehouse for 15 or whatever years and the guys coming in to relive old times but Dan or Harold have get Bill and Ernie along the way as the movie is developing with the young kids in tow.
But anyway, Hollywood will see this as a new way to restamp everything just like Lucas has also done with the Star Wars trilogy and prequels. They'll take a classic piece of something and completely twist it so its nothing like we recognize and love.
Believe me, I really really want GB3 to happen. I just want it done for fans like the Transformers and GI Joe movies should have been made, instead of being redeveloped to reach a broader audience and transformed from classic movie franchise to new flavor of the month that will be a shadow of its former greatness…at least in our/my eyes.
personally though, I hate the idea of it being a GB franchise movie with GB outlets around the country/world. There are four guys and they save the world. They are like superheroes. I don't want it like every Tom, Dick and Harry are savin' the day while the pros are has-beens.
My opinion on Ghostbusters III
by
15 years ago
by
15 years ago
Wait…
So you said “Really, about the only way I can see them doing the third movie is its like Dan envisioned is the 4 guys are CEO/executives in a GB franchise or its done EGB ”Back in the Saddle“ style.”
But then said “personally though, I hate the idea of it being a GB franchise movie with GB outlets around the country/world.”
So which is it? With franchises or without, lol.
And also, you bring up a good point that's been debated many times, in referring to them as superheroes.
Most people (and I'm of this camp) like to think of the guys as they were meant to be portrayed… They're just normal everyday scientists, who are more like janitors, police, or firemen, than they are like superheroes. They don't have superpowers or anything. They built equipment, and if taught how to use that equipment, yes, every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to be a Ghostbuster.
I totally agree with your points about Hollywoodizing it though… If they do to Ghostbusters what they did to G.I. Joe, I might kill someone.
So you said “Really, about the only way I can see them doing the third movie is its like Dan envisioned is the 4 guys are CEO/executives in a GB franchise or its done EGB ”Back in the Saddle“ style.”
But then said “personally though, I hate the idea of it being a GB franchise movie with GB outlets around the country/world.”
So which is it? With franchises or without, lol.
And also, you bring up a good point that's been debated many times, in referring to them as superheroes.
Most people (and I'm of this camp) like to think of the guys as they were meant to be portrayed… They're just normal everyday scientists, who are more like janitors, police, or firemen, than they are like superheroes. They don't have superpowers or anything. They built equipment, and if taught how to use that equipment, yes, every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be able to be a Ghostbuster.
I totally agree with your points about Hollywoodizing it though… If they do to Ghostbusters what they did to G.I. Joe, I might kill someone.
by
15 years ago
Star Wars and Indy were fucked by Lucas, no one else, Indy 4 was re-written about 5 times by hired writers, before Lucas agreed on a “good” plot ( i remember reading about Indy 4 along time ago, and that the original plot would revolve around the secret of Atlantis ). he has more money and creative power than the studio itself.
Transformers and GI Joe are, i geuss “open” franchises, where the studio owns most of the rights and are able to do what ever they want with it.
Ghostbusters is a comedy franchise owned mostly by its creators Ivan, Dan, and Harold, so what ever creative input they have goes into the movie. the studio will probably have little to do with it. Dan's very passionate about these movies, i dont think he'd let anyone mess with it.
Transformers and GI Joe are, i geuss “open” franchises, where the studio owns most of the rights and are able to do what ever they want with it.
Ghostbusters is a comedy franchise owned mostly by its creators Ivan, Dan, and Harold, so what ever creative input they have goes into the movie. the studio will probably have little to do with it. Dan's very passionate about these movies, i dont think he'd let anyone mess with it.
by
15 years ago
Regarding the franchise option, I'm pretty sure that is how Dan would probably like to do it since its very close to his original script for Ghostbusters but I don't like that idea much. I hate to keep drawing unfair comparisions but I like the idea that the GBs are superheroes without powers. Sure any Tom, Dick or Harry could be a Ghostbuster (wouldn't we all?) but I like the…I guess the best way to describe it is “feel” or “vibe” that its these four guys who have to save the world and no one else can do it. Hell, they described it that way on the poster for the first movie after all. To me, its like they are the Fantastic Four. You can replace a couple of people but its not the same. (ex. Mr. Fantastic and Sue Storm leave the FF and are replaced by Storm and Black Panther).
Maybe I just can't articulate what exactly it is im trying to say but perhaps someone else who feels like I do about this can elaborate.
Another good example of a way I really hope they don't f*ck this up, is what Hollywood did to a classic western franchise from the 60s. Remember Wild Wild West? My dad was about as a big a fan of that as I am to GBs and he really wanted to see a movie of it. What did he get? Will Smith fighting a huge metal spider controlled by a even more dickless runt than Walter Peck? Hollywood…continuing to f*ck up as many things as possible. (Coincidentally, its funny that most of Hollywood/stars think they should be running the government when they can't even keep their own house in order. Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black I guess.)
Maybe I just can't articulate what exactly it is im trying to say but perhaps someone else who feels like I do about this can elaborate.
Another good example of a way I really hope they don't f*ck this up, is what Hollywood did to a classic western franchise from the 60s. Remember Wild Wild West? My dad was about as a big a fan of that as I am to GBs and he really wanted to see a movie of it. What did he get? Will Smith fighting a huge metal spider controlled by a even more dickless runt than Walter Peck? Hollywood…continuing to f*ck up as many things as possible. (Coincidentally, its funny that most of Hollywood/stars think they should be running the government when they can't even keep their own house in order. Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black I guess.)
by
15 years ago
i wouldn't call them “superheroes”, the “saving the world” tagline was meant to be sarcastic and humorous, the whole unlikeliness of four goofy characters unwittingly saving the city and soley just for the paycheck, is what makes it all the more funny.
Wild Wild West is another movie, that was owned more by the studio holders rather than the righful creators, i doubt it was even produced by the creators.
I think the comparison you're trying to make is that Peter,Egon,Ray,Winston are kind of like a favourite band, i'll use Clash as an example, (say that Joe Strummer never died), but the Clash still broke up, only to make a comeback around 20 years later, but with plans to have a whole new line-up.
Wild Wild West is another movie, that was owned more by the studio holders rather than the righful creators, i doubt it was even produced by the creators.
I think the comparison you're trying to make is that Peter,Egon,Ray,Winston are kind of like a favourite band, i'll use Clash as an example, (say that Joe Strummer never died), but the Clash still broke up, only to make a comeback around 20 years later, but with plans to have a whole new line-up.
by
15 years ago
On her contradicting herself, I guess she did but my point is that many of us contradict ourselves in the thoughts of the original fab 4 doing GB3. Why? Well, we are torn inside as to if they should do it and such. I have a torn feeling as I don't want them to look like fools to the wolrd that they waited, but they need to do it. Contradiction? I guess, but I call it complicated! 
As long as it is good, has the feel and vibe of the first two (no lame vigo ending, some ending that is HUGE and cool) then I am fine, even with a “pass the torch on” theme.
As long as it is good, has the feel and vibe of the first two (no lame vigo ending, some ending that is HUGE and cool) then I am fine, even with a “pass the torch on” theme.
by
15 years ago
If a third movie came out in like the 90s, it would probly be complete shit. At that point it'd be only to cash in on what little money was left in the franchise. Now a days if your going to make a sequel after so long it is usually somewhat well made and has a decent budget and some time put into it.
If they made it back then it would be made like GBII, with that “strike while the iron is hot” mentality. As opposed to “lets make a quality film”
If they made it back then it would be made like GBII, with that “strike while the iron is hot” mentality. As opposed to “lets make a quality film”
by
15 years ago
sandmanfvr;156566Yeah.. I'm just not sure if I want GB III or not.
On her contradicting herself, I guess she did but my point is that many of us contradict ourselves in the thoughts of the original fab 4 doing GB3. Why? Well, we are torn inside as to if they should do it and such. I have a torn feeling as I don't want them to look like fools to the wolrd that they waited, but they need to do it. Contradiction? I guess, but I call it complicated!
As long as it is good, has the feel and vibe of the first two (no lame vigo ending, some ending that is HUGE and cool) then I am fine, even with a “pass the torch on” theme.
by
15 years ago
sandmanfvr;156566
On her contradicting herself, I guess she did but my point is that many of us contradict ourselves in the thoughts of the original fab 4 doing GB3. Why? Well, we are torn inside as to if they should do it and such. I have a torn feeling as I don't want them to look like fools to the wolrd that they waited, but they need to do it. Contradiction? I guess, but I call it complicated!
As long as it is good, has the feel and vibe of the first two (no lame vigo ending, some ending that is HUGE and cool) then I am fine, even with a “pass the torch on” theme.
THANK YOU! It seems like people are more eager to attack Egonsgirl because she “contradicts herself” rather than actually address the issues that she raised in her post.
If GB 3 is made, it will be “hollywoodized”. It will be bright, loud and obnoxious. There will be big CGI scenes with millions of CGI ghosts flying around, CGI police cars being thrown in the air, CGI people running from the ghosts/getting slimed and pretty much everything else will be CGI too. Bill Murray has said that GB2 was crap because it was all effects and no comedy. Do you honestly think that “hollywood” would revitalize a franchise like GB to make it about the comedy? Personally, I think they'd go for the easy home run. Pump a weak script full of special effects and action and make 700 million dollars in the first 2 weeks…
by
15 years ago
Uh, have you seen “District 9”? Whole movie was nothing but CGI-crafted aliens, spaceships, and explosions and it was absolutely beautiful and had enough human drama in it to let the viewer grow emotionally attached to the characters.
Any posts that go, “Meehhh! It's gonna be nothing but CGI shots!” can kiss my white Irish ass. Are you saying you would rather have cheesey stop-motion animation like the giant yellow ghost in GBII come back? Assuming Reitman goes with a GOOD production company like Mojave instead of whoever crapped out “My Super Ex-Girlfriend”, we're in good hands.
All I'm saying is: if it does happen, accept the fact that yes, ghosts will be CGI. Deal with it. However if they even make the blankety-blank movie, they're not going to skip on the CGI cause that's what's going to make or break it with the fans and the critics. Remember “10,000 BC”? Most of the critics were blasting it because the creatures looked like cartoon characters.
Let's not forget: most of the actors have a history of improv, so if a joke or a line in the script is weak, we all know that they can come up with at least three different ways to say it or come up with something completely new, i.e. Sigourney's car salesman line.
Any posts that go, “Meehhh! It's gonna be nothing but CGI shots!” can kiss my white Irish ass. Are you saying you would rather have cheesey stop-motion animation like the giant yellow ghost in GBII come back? Assuming Reitman goes with a GOOD production company like Mojave instead of whoever crapped out “My Super Ex-Girlfriend”, we're in good hands.
All I'm saying is: if it does happen, accept the fact that yes, ghosts will be CGI. Deal with it. However if they even make the blankety-blank movie, they're not going to skip on the CGI cause that's what's going to make or break it with the fans and the critics. Remember “10,000 BC”? Most of the critics were blasting it because the creatures looked like cartoon characters.
Let's not forget: most of the actors have a history of improv, so if a joke or a line in the script is weak, we all know that they can come up with at least three different ways to say it or come up with something completely new, i.e. Sigourney's car salesman line.